West Aims to Help Ukraine Avoid Reactor Computer Problems

By THE NEW YORK TIMES,
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/08/biztech/articles/19ukraine-y2k.html

KIEV, Ukraine -- With less than five months to go before the year 2000, a project financed by Western governments has just got under way to try to fully immunize Ukraine's 14 aging, trouble-prone nuclear reactors against the Y2K computer problem.

The main goal of the project is to insure that no bugs crop up that could lead to power blackouts on New Year's Day, said Bob Talbert, an American nuclear power expert who is working on the project.

He said that he and other experts were already satisfied that the reactors' computers would not cause any safety problems and that the reactors would not automatically shut down at midnight on New Year's Eve.

In U.S. congressional hearings earlier this year, CIA officials said that the Y2K problem might prompt sudden shutdowns of nuclear reactors throughout Ukraine and Russia. That could have particularly devastating consequences in Ukraine, where nuclear power accounts for almost half of all electricity.

Although a nuclear accident was said to be unlikely, any mention of potential problems at Ukraine's nuclear reactors raises the specter of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986, which poisoned regions of Ukraine and Belarus and sprinkled radioactive dust across central and northern Europe.

An agreement is in the works under which the Group of Seven industrialized democracies would help Ukraine build new energy sources and Ukraine would shut down Chernobyl's last working reactor by Jan. 1. But until that deal is complete, Ukraine plans to keep the station chugging along.

Earlier this month, a French diplomat told Agence France-Presse that his embassy was advising French citizens who "do not absolutely need to be in Ukraine" to take a vacation in France for the four weeks around New Year's Day.

"It's almost certain that there will be panic buying of food and fuel," the embassy's first secretary, Jean-Francois Devemy, was quoted as saying.

The French Embassy quickly issued a retraction, saying that Devemy had been misinterpreted and had spoken partly "in jest." The statement said there were "no grounds at the moment to issue any security advice whatsoever" to French citizens living in or planning to visit Ukraine.

The American and British embassies previously issued statements recommending that anyone planning to be in Ukraine around New Year's Day prepare for potential problems with distribution of power, water, fuel and food.

Talbert, the nuclear expert, said that stocking up on water, food and gas would be a reasonable precaution, but that the worst he could imagine happening was localized blackouts of a few hours on New Year's Day.

But another participant in the Y2K project, Valentin Ponomarenko, a private consultant, said he was concerned that Ukrainian officials do not fully appreciate the potential danger.

He said his greatest fear was that power station managers would choose to turn off faulty safety systems and keep electricity flowing rather than shut down reactors until the safety systems could be fixed. Energy officials have repeatedly suggested that they are willing to do just that.

Talbert said that all 14 "process computers," which are basically centralized record keepers that can aid after-the-fact analysis of reactor problems, were known to be vulnerable. Although the failure of a process computer poses no immediate safety risk, he said, operators would be legally obliged to shut down a reactor within hours after the process computer stopped working.

Ukraine has a record of ignoring its own nuclear safety regulations and overriding automatic safety systems. During the harsh Ukrainian winter, the national power grid often operates on the brink of collapse, and nuclear power station operators come under heavy pressure to keep electricity flowing.

Operators are tempted to take such risky measures because shutting down reactors would only make the grid more unstable, potentially starting a domino effect that could shut down all reactors and create a countrywide power failure in the dead of winter.

---------

Death at Navy Bombing Range Resonates Through Puerto Rico
Island Officials SeekLasting Cease-Fire

By Karl Ross Special to The Washington Post Thursday, August 19, 1999; Page A10
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/19/139l-081999-idx.html

VIEQUES, Puerto RicoRafael Torres, a former security guard at the U.S. Navy base here, said he still hears noises in his head--a sound like the fighter jet that in 1995 hurled two cement-filled projectiles a few feet from where he was standing during war maneuvers.

"The other day I was sleeping in my armchair, and I dove on the floor when I heard airplanes buzzing in my ears," said Torres, 49, who has since retired with a disability pension because of psychological trauma from the accident.

He said one bomb struck the three-story observation post he was guarding, crashing through the top two floors. The second landed feet away from where he stood, spewing chunks of cement.

Torres didn't realize it at the time, but this narrow miss foreshadowed a much more serious accident. Last April 19, one of Torres's co-workers, David Sanes Rodriguez, was pulling duty at the same post when a Navy F-18 dumped two 5,000-pound bombs about 1.9 miles off course. Unlike the inert practice bombs Torres encountered, these projectiles packed live explosives. Sanes was killed, and four other base employees were injured.

The incident has stirred widespread political opposition to the Navy's nearly 60-year hegemony over this Puerto Rican island-municipality, which 9,300 residents have reluctantly shared with a huge bombing range. Now the Pentagon is in danger of losing its premier naval training facility, the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility in Vieques, judged by military analysts to be an "irreplaceable" national security asset and the only site in the Atlantic where the military can stage integrated sea and air training.

Capt. James K. Stark Jr., who as commanding officer of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station is in charge of the Vieques facility, said crews on all ships in the U.S. Atlantic Fleet sharpen their skills here regularly and visit the Vieques target range for a final tuneup before steaming off to overseas conflict. Simulating "the fog of war" with the use of live munitions is vital to success in actual combat, he said.

"When you steam off to battle you're either ready or you're not," Stark said. "If you're not, that means casualties. That means more POWs. That means less precision and longer campaigns. You a pay a price for all this in war, and that price is blood."

The Navy says this is the first casualty on the ground in more than half a century of exercises. But Puerto Rico officials have decided that enough blood has been spilled at Vieques.

"The life of a single Puerto Rican is priceless, and we're not willing to run the risk of losing another life," said Puerto Rico Secretary of State Norma Burgos. "How many people have to die before they realize it's time to go?"

Since Sanes's death, Puerto Rico Gov. Pedro Rossello has petitioned President Clinton and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen for a permanent cease-fire in Vieques and the return of Navy-held lands. The Rossello-appointed Special Commission on Vieques, in a June 25 report, charged that Navy practices in Vieques constitute violations of residents' fundamental rights and lack adequate safeguards to protect against potential mishaps in civilian areas.

The report did collateral damage to the Navy's image, in particular its disclosure that U.S. forces training in Vieques have used napalm and uranium-laced munitions during war games here.

The report also called for an epidemiological study to determine whether Navy practices are linked to Vieques's cancer rate--by far the highest of any of Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities, studies have shown. The report also cites gross environmental abuses, including the destruction of endangered species habitats, and calls for action against the Navy under "environmental justice" statutes.

The deep-seated resentment felt by many in Vieques--who are U.S. citizens, as all Puerto Ricans have been since 1917--is echoed by Jose Silva, 59, a street-side kiosk owner who was born the year before the Navy arrived in 1941 and expropriated three-quarters of the island. Holding up a bowling pin-sized bomb he collected as a "souvenir," Silva said: "There are two bases here and no jobs for anybody. The people here are dying of cancer by the dozens," including nine members of his own family, he said. "The Navy wants to carbonize us all."

Vieques residents are displaying a more militant anti-Navy stance these days. Municipal workers can be spotted in T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan: "If the Navy doesn't leave, we're going to kick it out." White flags, symbolic of the quest for "peace for Vieques," are festooned about the civilian area--a four-mile-wide strip in the center of this lush, 21-mile-long island. Fenced in between twin military bases on either side of them and besieged by the continual blasting of military exercises--200 to 250 days a year--some residents liken their plight to that of prisoners of war.

The cause has gathered some support on Capitol Hill. Democratic Reps. Luis V. Gutierrez (Ill.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Nydia M. Velazquez (N.Y.), as well as Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), earlier this month called for the Navy to vacate Vieques. And it has caught the attention of Puerto Rican voters in New York, where first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton is exploring a bid for the Senate. Democratic Councilman Jose Rivera of the Bronx and Dennis Rivera, leader of the local hospital workers union, are organizing a Sept. 11 protest that they hope will turn out tens of thousands of demonstrators.

Vieques residents have enjoyed the tranquillity of a temporary cease-fire, as the Navy suspended exercises following Sanes's death. But Navy officials have announced plans to resume training missions in September. First, they will have to evict protesters who have formed at least four renegade settlement camps on Navy land.

The future of the controversy will be shaped by the findings of a presidential panel that is to issue its findings to Defense Secretary Cohen, possibly by the end of this month. Sentiment on the island is that the Special Panel on Military Operations in Vieques--three of whose members are retired military officers--will not recommend evicting the Navy. They are hopeful, nonetheless, that President Clinton would override any recommendations for a compromise arrangement.

In the past, many top Puerto Rico officials seemed indifferent about the Navy's control of Vieques. But that is changing.

Burgos, the secretary of state, said the Rossello administration will not accept anything short of the Navy's full withdrawal, citing spotty compliance with a 1983 pact in which the Navy was supposed to improve its stewardship of Vieques.

She said the Navy has "no credibility" in Puerto Rico and alleged that Navy officials lied to her in public hearings about using napalm and uranium on the island and about letting foreign militaries use the target range. In May, the Navy said that it mistakenly fired 267 rounds tipped with depleted uranium at Vieques in February in violation of federal laws.

Navy officials counter that Vieques, located eight miles from Roosevelt Roads--the largest Navy base in the world--is "uniquely" suited for amphibious training exercises and would cost $3.5 billion to replace.

Vieques is the only such facility in the Atlantic--the Navy has one on the island of San Clemente in the Pacific. They say all 18 alternative sites considered so far pose logistical problems such as the disruption of shipping lanes, commercial airplane routes or wildlife habitat.

"Give me a couple of billion dollars and make me God, and I'll go someplace else in a nanosecond," said base commander Stark. "But that's not the reality of it."

---

Puerto Rico May Deny US Navy Permit

By Chris Hawley Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 18, 1999; 9:00 p.m. EDT
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990818/V000238-081899-idx.html

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- A Puerto Rican agency on Wednesday threatened to deny the U.S. Navy an environmental permit it says is necessary to resume military exercises on Vieques Island.

The threat by the Environmental Quality Board was its latest skirmish with the Navy over bombing exercises.

On Tuesday, the board sent 12 inspectors to the Vieques range to investigate claims by opponents of the exercises that bombing has contaminated groundwater.

Navy officials refused to admit one member of the team, a munitions expert hired as a consultant, because they feared he was gathering evidence for a potential lawsuit the Puerto Rican government is considering against the Navy. The inspection was canceled.

``This person was not an inspector. He was a technical adviser,'' said Navy spokesman Roberto Nelson.

Hector Russe, the board's president, said he might deny the Navy a water quality certificate required by the Environmental Protection Agency for the military maneuvers if the entire team can't visit the range.

Russe said the consultant was hired because the agency lacks an expert in the chemicals used in military explosives.

The Navy requested the water quality certificate in 1989, but Russe said the application was never processed because of a clerical error. The EPA allowed the military to continue exercises without the certificate, he said.

Russe said local regulators discovered the lack of a permit during a government probe into exercises at the range. Nelson said the Navy wants to comply.

EPA officials in San Juan could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The inspection was to have coincided with a two-day visit by EPA experts investigating claims of environmental damage.

The Navy owns two-thirds of Vieques and uses it for weapons storage and military maneuvers. About 9,400 people live in the other third.

Opposition to the Navy's presence flared after an F-18 jet dropped two bombs off target and killed a civilian guard at the training ground on April 19. Later, the Navy admitted it fired 267 rounds tipped with depleted uranium at the island in February in violation of federal rules.

A Puerto Rican government investigation detailed other accidents at the training ground, and protesters have occupied the bombing range in an attempt to thwart further exercises.

President Clinton has appointed a panel to consider the dispute.

-----------

China agrees to deal with Iran on missiles

By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES, August 19, 1999
http://www.washtimes.com/news/news3.html

China recently signed an $11 million deal to improve Iran's anti-ship missiles, an agreement that again raises questions about Beijing's 1998 promise not to supply Tehran with cruise missiles or technology, The Washington Times has learned.

The contract was revealed in intelligence reports sent to senior Clinton administration policy-makers last month.

Pentagon officials familiar with the report said the deal will involve transfers of technology to upgrade Iran's FL-10 anti-ship cruise missile.

The short-range FL-10s are being modified by the Chinese to be fired from Iranian attack helicopters and fast patrol boats that could threaten U.S. or allied warships, or oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, the officials said.

One of the missiles was tested successfully from a helicopter in the Gulf of Oman in March, the officials said.

White House National Security Council spokesman David Leavy said he could not comment directly on the issue because it involves intelligence matters.

"We are concerned about any Chinese missile sales to Iran, and we have raised our concerns with Beijing," Mr. Leavy said. "We will continue to make the point that military exports to Iran are potentially destabilizing in the Persian Gulf, which is not in China's interest."

Iran in the past has bought Chinese C-801 and C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles, and China promised the United States last year that it would halt all future sales and cooperation relating to the missile, including upgrades.

The pledge, which was never put in writing, has been cited by Clinton administration officials as a positive sign of China's cooperation in limiting arms sales to unstable regions.

Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon also declined to address the FL-10 contract. But he said the assurances from China to the United States cover C-801s and C-802s. "It is my view that those promises are intact," he said.

Other Pentagon officials said the new FL-10 contract violates the spirit of the assurances provided by Chinese leaders to Defense Secretary William S. Cohen during a January 1998 visit to Beijing. The FL-10 deal is part of continuing efforts by China to supply Iran with weapons that threaten U.S. Navy ships in the region, these officials said.

One official said the cooperation was an example of China "proliferating [weapons] on a consistent basis without technically breaking agreements with the United States."

However, other Clinton administration officials questioned about the FL-10 deal said the system is not covered under the oral promises made to Mr. Cohen by Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotien in the January 1998 meetings.

"It's a very different system in terms of capabilities," said a senior administration official in comparing the FL-10 to the C-801 and C-802 cruise missiles.

A second official said, "The missile is not covered under the Chinese pledge."

But Mr. Cohen said in 1998 that the assurances he received from China's president and defense minister covered more than just new missile sales. "There will be no new sales, no transfers of technology, no technical cooperation that could give Iran an ability to upgrade current systems," he said at the time.

A defense official also said then that the Chinese pledge covered all cruise missile sales and included technology, not just cruise missiles.

"It was the very clear message that no sales will go forward, no transfers -- period -- to Iran," said one official. "That would include those missiles that have been contracted for before."

Jane's Defense Weekly says Iran's FL-10 is based on the design of China's FL-2 or FL-7 missiles. The FL-2 has an estimated range of 32 miles and the supersonic FL-7 has a range of up to 19 miles.

The land-based C-801 has a range of 25 miles, while the C-802 can hit targets up to 75 miles away. The C-802s were sold in 1996 along with Chinese-made missile-firing patrol boats.

Halting Chinese missile sales to Iran has been a top arms-control priority of the Clinton administration since senior Chinese officials first promised in October they had "no intention" of selling any more cruise missiles to Iran.

In a follow-up meeting with Gen. Chi two months later, Mr. Cohen was told that all sales of C-801 and C-802 missiles to Iran would be stopped.

It is not clear whether the FL-10 cooperation violates U.S. law aimed at halting transfers of destabilizing arms to Iran and Iraq.

The Chinese C-802 missile sales prompted charges from Congress that the transfers violated laws requiring sanctions be imposed under the Gore-McCain act. The law sponsored by Sens. Al Gore, Tennessee Democrat and now the vice president, and John McCain, Arizona Republican, requires U.S. sanctions be imposed on the sellers.

The State Department ruled in 1997 that the C-801 and C-802 sales to Iran were not destabilizing enough to warrant sanctions on China.

-----------

Taiwan Seeks Place Under Missile Shield
U.S. Arms Sales to Taipei Anger China

By Michael Laris Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, August 19, 1999; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-08/19/138l-081999-idx.html

BEIJING, Aug. 18Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui said today that the island wants to take part in a proposed regional missile-defense shield being considered by the United States, while China's army newspaper blasted Lee for buying billions of dollars of American weapons.

The dueling messages underscored Washington's sensitive position in the latest crisis across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait and illustrated how leaders in Beijing and Taipei are trying to sway the opinions of policymakers in Washington, military analysts said.

The Chinese government wants the Clinton administration to cut weapons sales to Taiwan, and to push Lee to retract his July 9 declaration that ties between China and Taiwan should be considered "special state-to-state relations," according to a Western diplomat. Beijing considered Lee's statements a step toward a formal declaration of independence, which it has vowed would be met with an invasion.

"We would rather lose a thousand soldiers than lose an inch of land," said the Liberation Army Daily, China's military newspaper.

Taiwan's government, meanwhile, wants the Clinton administration to agree to sell it more advanced weapons. Lee said after a classified briefing on missile defense today that such a system "not only meets the needs of the current situation but also is in line with the long-term interest of the country." Defense Minister Tang Fei added that "building a missile defense system is necessary for the sake of national self-defense."

A missile defense umbrella for Taiwan would require extensive cooperation with the United States, which is researching the idea of building a missile shield in Asia. The technology for such a system, known as Theater Missile Defense, has not been developed, and Washington has not decided whether to deploy it or whether Taiwan would be included.

A senior Chinese official warned earlier this year that including Taiwan under a U.S. missile shield would be an infringement on Chinese sovereignty and would be the "last straw" in Sino-American relations.

Andrew Yang, a senior military analyst at the Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei, said Lee made the strong statement in support of joining the proposed missile defense system today as part of an effort to test the intentions of the Clinton administration, and to garner support in Congress, which is considering measures to buttress Taiwan's security.

"It's to test the U.S. attitude and it's policy to protect Taiwan," Yang said.

Military analysts say that it will take years to develop a Theater Missile Defense system. As a stopgap, Yang said, Taiwan wants Washington to sell it the latest version of the Patriot missile, which is designed to shoot down offensive missiles at a low altitude.

-----------

India Shrugs Off Nuke Conflict

By The Associated Press, August 19, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-India-Nuclear.html

NEW DELHI, India (AP) -- India's foreign minister shrugged off concerns Thursday that it is inching toward a nuclear conflict with neighboring Pakistan.

Jaswant Singh rejected the worries the followed its release of a new nuclear policy statement, despite expressions of alarm from the United States and China.

``I am fully confident that we will be able to assuage the concerns that have been expressed in Washington and Beijing,'' Jaswant Singh was quoted as saying by Press Trust of India.

India unveiled a draft nuclear doctrine Tuesday that say it will pursue a policy of credible nuclear deterrence and will use nuclear weapons only to retaliate against a first strike.

The policy can be adopted only after a new government assumes office in mid-October following national elections. The ruling coalition is ahead in the polls.

The State Department said Tuesday that India is ``clearly moving in the wrong direction.''

President Clinton has written to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a Foreign Office spokesman said Thursday, adding that Vajpayee would reply. He did not give details of the letter, describing it as ``regular correspondence'' between the two leaders.

James Rubin, the State Department spokesman, said the United States opposed any Indian move to develop a nuclear deterrent because that would only create an ``an action-reaction cycle that will increase the risks'' to both India and Pakistan.

Pakistan also slammed the doctrine. Speaking Thursday at the 66-nation Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the world's main disarmament forum, Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram pledged that his country would respond in kind to any Indian escalation in the arms race.

``The proposed Indian doctrine also makes it clear that India's nuclear escalation will be accompanied by the further buildup of India's conventional warfare capabilities,'' he said.

Since most of India's conventional `assets' are deployed against Pakistan, his country will be obliged to respond to the buildup, he said.

In Islamabad, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmed promised to ``never compromise on our vital security matters.''

He said a growing imbalance in military capabilities ``will intensify Pakistan's reliance on nuclear capabilities to deter the use or threat of aggression by India.''

Singh will lead India's delegation to New York next month to attend the U.N. General Assembly session. He said he would meet with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

``If they (U.S.) wish to take it up with us, I am ready to discuss with them,'' Singh said.

The nuclear doctrine, announced weeks before India holds its general elections, has been slammed by opposition groups. The first of the several phases of balloting will be held Sept. 5 and a new government is expected to be in place by mid-October.

---

Government trying to influence poll with N-doctrine: Opposition

Deccan (India) Herald - DH News Service NEW DELHI, Aug 18 1999
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug19/nuke.htm

The Opposition today flayed the caretaker BJP-led government for coming out with a ''nuclear doctrine`` just to ''influence the elections`` and said it would lead to nuclear arms race in the sub-continent.

Reacting angrily to the document, the Congress questioned the timing of the release of the paper and said that it has been released on eve of the elections just to influence the voters.

''I don`t know how to express our unhappiness. They are not running a college union, they are running a government,`` said Mr Pranab Mukherjee, AICC General Secretary, while briefing newspersons.

The CPM described the circulation of the nuclear doctrine as an ''illegitimate act`` and dismissed it as ''nuclear sabre-rattling`` to garner votes.

''The caretaker government has no business to act on such a critical matter having serious implications for national security and international peace for petty electoral gains,`` CPM politburo member Prakash Karat told reporters here.

''This illegitimate nuclear doctrine by an unaccountable government must be rejected for what it is: nuclear sabre-rattling to garner votes for an irresponsible and jingoistic party,`` Mr Karat said, pointing out that the document prepared by the National Security Advisory Board has not even been discussed or sanctioned by the Union Cabinet. It was typical of the ''authoritarian style`` functioning of the caretaker government and Prime Minister`s Office, he added.

Describing the document as ''political``, the Nationalist Congress Party leader P A Sangma said, ''it is a brazen politicisation of the nuclear issue by the BJP led government to gain political mileage in the elections. It is in the nature of a battle cry aimed at winning a domestic political war.``

''These are the details (in the document) in the realm of weaponisation and the prudence of public reference to these details is quite questionable, particularly in the context of all-round exhortations being made for mobilisation of resources for human development. Articulation of such details also has implications for arms race in the sub-continent,`` said Mr Sangma.

Mr Mukherjee questioned the intentions of the government. ''They could have brought the doctrine in May last year after they blasted Pokhran II,`` Mr Mukherjee said.

-----------

New plutonium trade raises alarm
Ships with weapons material pose proliferation risks

A Greenpeace boat circles the harbor in Cherbourg, France, as French vessels guard the British ship Pacific Teal, background, as it was loaded with a cargo of plutonium.

By Kari Huus MSNBC, August 6, 1999
http://www.msnbc.com/news/292687.asp

SEATTLE, Aug. 6 1999 This week, the two most heavily armed merchant ships since World War II, the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail, headed for the Cape of Good Hope. Their cargo: enough plutonium to make 75 nuclear warheads. The ships, en route from France to Japan, are the first of many slated to move large quantities of weapons grade plutonium across the Pacific, part of a trend that some experts say will greatly increase the risk of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.

THE TWO SHIPS are armed with 30-millimeter cannons, seven tons of ammunition and enough fuel to make the 60-day journey without stopping. In Japan, the material, known as mixed oxide fuel or “MOX,” is to be used to power civilian nuclear plants. Plans call for thousands of tons of the substance to be shipped there in the coming decades. Yet only a small amount is needed to create a weapon more devastating than the one that destroyed the Japanese city of Hiroshima 54 years ago today.

Despite the armaments and secrecy surrounding this voyage, activists led by Greenpeace, joined by some top scientists, have argued that security measures surrounding the MOX shipments were not stringent enough. The reason lies in the nature of MOX, which by many measures is an attractive target for theft and diversion.

“It’s a wrong turn in the road of securing plutonium from those who might misuse it,” said Jim Riccio, staff attorney with Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy Project. “This is the coming trend,” said Riccio.

MAKING MOX

MOX is made up of uranium and plutonium, which generally comes from “reprocessing” the spent fuel of nuclear reactors. In terms of proliferation, MOX shipments present a greater risk than shipments of spent fuel, which is so radioactive it is classified as “self-protecting.” Such waste is difficult or deadly to handle, whereas

MOX can be handled with no special equipment, and minimal immediate danger. The plutonium in MOX can be separated by a simple and widely known chemical process.

Separating and processing the plutonium for use in weapons presents, “fewer financial and technical challenges than the attack on two separate U.S. embassies in two separate countries,” says Mathew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard University, referring to the twin blasts at U.S. embassies in East Africa a year ago Saturday. “It is not at all beyond the capability of a well-funded and well-organized terrorist group.”

Turning the reactor-grade plutonium into bombs was proven possible at Los Alamos in the 1940s, contrary to what advocates for the nuclear industry say. “It’s a little known, but unclassified fact,” said Bunn, who was science and technology advisor to the Clinton administration in its first term.

“There are immediate and long range problems,” says Hisham Zerriffi, project scientist for the Institute of Energy and Environment in Washington, DC. The shipments contain plutonium for one, an environmental risk. “Not only that but it’s plutonium in a form much easier to turn into weapons than the plutonium in spent fuels.”

Up to now, the movement of MOX has been largely within Europe, and mainly within France, which has the world’s largest reprocessing program outside of Russia. But that is about to change. Japan has contracts to receive an estimated 80 shipments of MOX from reprocessing plants in France and Britain. In total, Japan is contracted to receive about 30,000 kilograms from Europe by 2010.

The U.S. has a policy dating to the 1970s that bans use of plutonium in commercial power plantsprecisely because of concerns about proliferation. But Washington is doing an about face.

Now that the Cold War is over, nuclear weapons programs in the U.S. and Russian military operations are bursting with excess plutonium. Together, the two former rivals have declared themselves 100 tons in excess of what is needed to maintain shrinking nuclear weapons arsenals.

Pantex workers count stored barrels of plutonium and other radioactive material. In 1994, there were 600 stored, but another 14,000 will be stored by century's end. The danger is if the material catches on fire, it could create a radioactive cloud threatening nearby Amarillo, Texas.

But Moscow and Washington have struggled to find common ground on the disposal of weapons-ready plutonium, which remains in large storage facilities such as the Pantex site in Amarillo, Texas. One solution that many scientists consider more permanent, and involves fewer transport risks involves turning the plutonium into a glass or ceramic rod, and then submerging the rods in fluid that is itself radioactive, as a deterrent to theft.

But Moscow sees these more final solutions as squandering a resource that could, one day, be useful. “Though most Americans regard plutonium as a liability, Russians see it as a precious commodity and are very suspicious of plans to dispose of it,” said Bill Potter, at the Monterey Institute.

One reason is that Russia, and a number of other nations that might help Russia pay for its plutonium problem, are developing breeder reactor programs. These programs use a type of power plant that uses some plutonium, but produces more plutonium as a waste. No nation has perfected the system, environmental security or finances of a breeder reactor programand the U.S. dropped its efforts amid protest by environmentalists. The program’s allure remains: if perfected, it may allow energy self-sufficiency. This is especially appealing to countries like Japan, which currently rely heavily on imported oil from volatile regions.

LESSER OF THE EVILS

Turning weapons-grade plutonium into MOX for commercial plants is one of the solutions Russia, the U.S. and other major powers have agreed on. It is safer than allowing separated weapons-ready plutonium sit around in storage.

The MOX being burned in the U.S. will move to a handful of plants run by Duke Energy in the southeastern U.S. Security regulations mandate that it be handled with the same degree of sensitivity as nuclear weapons themselves.

What would happen to MOX of Russian origin is less clear. For one thing, there aren’t enough Russian power plants capable of burning MOX, raising possibility that the fuel will be shipped to places as far afield as Canada. Another issue: security around Russia’s nuclear facilities has badly deteriorated, a problem that has only grown worse during the current economic crisis.

In 1992, a worker at a fuel fabrication plant near Moscow stole small amounts of uranium day after day, and got away with it because he knew the precisely how much would raise alarms. By the time he was caught he had 1.5 kilograms, not quite enough for a bomb, but the incident raised international alarms. In August, 1994, at the Munich airport in Germany, authorities seized 560 grams of MOX powder. Analysis showed that 350 grams (or 62 percent) of it was plutonium and 87 percent of this was Pu-239-a key ingredient in nuclear weapons.

“The fundamental problem is that the amounts you need for producing power are in the tons, and for making a bomb just a few kilograms,” said Bunn. “The precautions required for ensuring that you don’t lose a few kilograms are very difficult.”

WHO WILL MONITOR MOX TRAFFIC?

As the volumes of plutonium for commercial purposes soar-there amount of plutonium in civil arena is about 180 tons and it creates another 20 tons every year-and it is unclear that any international agency is prepared to police it.

Critics of the nuclear industry have said the U.S. weakened its hand in efforts to discourage the use of plutonium by allies such as Japan and France by agreeing to burn MOX. And some suggest that Washington’s actions set a poor precedent in the case of the Pacific Teal and Pintail. Because the plutonium being shipped on the two ships was ultimately of U.S. origin, Washington had consent rights on the vessels; in effect, the U.S. could have prevented them from sailing or insisted on an armed naval escort. Instead, it approved the vessels to “escort each other” and so they were armed. The “levels of security were plainly less on this shipment,” than is normally demanded, says Bunn.

MOX RACE

Even as Washington and Moscow puzzle over solutions to diminish their plutonium stocks, Tokyo is trying to build plants that run on MOX fuel and its stockpiles of plutonium and MOX are building. For its neighbors, this raises painful memories of Japan’s brutal World War II aggression in the region. Fear of Japan has helped motivate the two Koreas, Taiwan and China to beef up their plutonium reprocessing programs.

By allowing the use of MOX in commercial reactors, “the White House may find it is impossible to convince other countries not to use plutonium in their reactors,” warns a report by the activist group WISE. “The real plutonium society has arrived.”

MARKETPLACE MAY RULE

If there is one serious deterrent to the commercial use of plutonium in commercial plants, so far it is economics.

Japan is in committed to accept the reprocessed MOX, which is derived from shipments of waste from its own nuclear plants, which was sent to Europe in the late 1970s. Japan’s own reprocessing plants have suffered setbacks, and its breeder reactor program has met with fierce resistance from environmentalists in Japan. And the price of oil, which was sky-high when the breeder program kicked off, has fallen dramatically, decreasing Tokyo’s incentives. It is faced with a dilemma: It has a shortage of reprocessing. On the other, the country has a growing plutonium surplus, raising accusations of stockpiling.

Resistance even for this single shipment has been significant, and at least three governments South Africa, New Zealand and Spain have insisted that the two ships not enter their territorial waters. As the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail head for their destination, the cost of transporting and secure the MOX fuel is rising. The ships were delayed by protests in Europe, and will meet more in South Korea. “This is one of the early shipments of MOX fuel to take place between Europe and Japan and offers an early opportunity for protest groups to highlight this type of transport,” says Jack Edlow, president of Edlow International Co. in Washington, D.C., a company that ships radioactive materials. But he plays down the proliferation risk of MOX. “The material itself is not necessarily riskier than material than that being transported in other trade routes or other materials being shipped in same trade route.”

MSNBC international correspondent Kari Huus is based in Seattle.

-----------

U.S., Russia Wrap Up Arms Talks

By The Associated Press, August 19, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-US-Arms-Talks.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- The United States and Russia reaffirmed on Thursday their 1972 treaty banning missile defense systems and agreed in principle to work on further reducing their nuclear warhead stockpiles.

The agreements came after three days of high-level discussions between the two nations about their nuclear arsenals.

One of the main points the sides discussed was the United States' desire to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty so it can build a limited missile defense system.

The system the United States wants to build would be designed to shoot down a single missile or a small number of missiles. It would not be effective against a massive attack, the kind Russia is capable of launching, the Americans say.

Moscow strongly opposes changes to the treaty, saying a missile defense system in the United States would upset the current strategic balance. But President Boris Yeltsin agreed to discuss ABM modifications when he met President Clinton in June.

After this week's talks, the two sides said the ABM treaty ``is the cornerstone of strategic stability'' between them. No specific proposals were discussed and no major decisions reached, but the sides agreed that ABM must remain strong.

The head of the Russian delegation at the talks repeated Russia's stance that any modifications to the treaty could set off a new arms race.

If the United States builds a missile defense system, ``Russia will be forced to raise the effectiveness of its strategic nuclear arms forces and carry out several other military and political steps to guarantee its national security,'' Grigory Berdennikov, the head of the Foreign Ministry's department for security and disarmament, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.

The sides also agreed in principle to start work on a START III treaty that would cut nuclear warheads to 2,000 to 2,500 per nation.

But before they can work on such a treaty, they have to finish ratification of START II. That treaty, which calls for both countries to scale back from around 6,000 warheads to 3,000 to 3,500 each, was signed in 1993. But Russia's parliament has yet to ratify it.

A Russian lawmaker involved in the talks said START II's ratification depends on a U.S.-Russian agreement on the ABM question.

``The Russian side made it plain that (START II) can be ratified only if there is a mutually acceptable stand'' on the ABM treaty, Vladimir Lukin, the chairman of parliament's committee for international affairs, told the ITAR-Tass news agency.

The Kremlin has urged the lower house, the State Duma, to make START II ratification a priority. But Communists and other hard-liners have balked, saying the treaty endangers Russia's security.

The U.S. Senate ratified START II in 1996.

---

Russia Launches Military Satellite

By The Associated Press, August 19, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-Satellite.html

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia successfully launched a military satellite from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northwest Russia, a news report said today.

The Cosmos-2365 satellite lifted off on Wednesday night and was put into orbit by a Soyuz-U rocket, the Strategic Rocket Forces told the Interfax news agency.

No other details were provided. Russia's military has put up far fewer satellites in recent years due to the government's chronic money shortages.

-------------

Japan, Russia Plan Military Hot Line

By The Associated Press, August 19, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Russia-Japan.html

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia (AP) -- Japan and Russia agreed Thursday to establish a military hot line to warn each other of potential threats at sea, Russia's Pacific Fleet said.

The agreement was reached by the head of the Japanese Defense Agency, Hosei Norota, and the commander of the Pacific Fleet, Adm. Mikhail Zakharenko, in Vladivostok.

Officials said the hot line would help Russia and Japan react more quickly to conflicts, like one in March when two boats, allegedly North Korean spy ships, entered Japanese waters.

Japanese patrol boats chased the intruders but called off pursuit after the falsely marked ships reached international waters and headed toward North Korea. Russia also deployed several ships to intercept the boats in case they entered Russian waters.

It was not clear whether the hot line would be used in cases involving confrontations between Russian patrol ships and Japanese fishing boats in waters near the disputed Kuril Islands.

The Soviet Union seized four of the Kuril islands in 1945, at the end of World War II, but Japan still claims them and their fishing boats occasionally go near the islands.

``We are neighbors and enjoy good relations. That's why communication like this should be established,'' said Alexander Kosolapov, a spokesman for the Pacific Fleet.

Meanwhile, a Japanese delegation arrived on Russia's eastern Sakhalin Island to search for the remains of soldiers killed in World War II, the Interfax news agency said Thursday.

The team from the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare is expected to spend several days looking near two mountains on the southern part of the island where fierce fighting took place in 1945.

The Soviet Union seized the southern half of the island in the war.

Japanese officials have been making expeditions to Sakhalin since 1990, and the remains of 16 Japanese servicemen were found last year.

-----------

North Korea Offers to Negotiate on Missile Tests, Easing Crisis

By CALVIN SIMS, August 19, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/081999nkorea-missile.html

TOKYO -- The crisis over a possible long-range missile test by North Korea appeared to be easing Wednesday, after the Communist government said that it was ready to negotiate with "hostile nations" like the United States, Japan and South Korea, which have adamantly opposed the missile launch.

In a statement carried by North Korea's foreign news agency, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "As regards the missile issue, we are always ready for negotiation if the hostile nations honestly ask for it out of an intention to alleviate our concern."

The statement was the first conciliatory gesture by North Korea in a tense, month-long conflict in which the United States, Japan, and South Korea threatened to cut off all foreign aid and remittances if North Korea proceeded with the test.

James Rubin, the State Department spokesman, responded to the statement by saying, "We've seen a number of statements that have hopeful elements to it, but we're in the business of focusing on commitments made through the formal diplomatic process."

Intelligence officials have said that the missile North Korea plans to test-fire was an advanced version of the Taepodong rocket it launched last year. The new Taepodong II has greater accuracy and range and could theoretically reach Alaska or Hawaii, they said.

While some Western and Asian embassy officials in Japan and South Korea said the statement paves the way for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, others warned against reading too much into it.

"The missile crisis doesn't appear to be worsening, but we still have a long way to go before it's over," said a South Korean diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Some diplomats said that it was futile to interpret such statements by North Korea as having any meaning. "This is a very dangerous country that makes a promise not to do something one day, and totally reneges the next," said a Western diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The first sign that North Korea might be softening its position came on Monday when CNN reported that officials close to North Korea's dictator Kim Jong Il had expressed optimism that a diplomatic solution could be reached.

"If the visitor comes and offers us a cake, we'll respond with a cake," CNN quoted Kim Yong Sun, a secretary of Pyongyang's Korea Workers Party, as saying. "But if somebody comes with a sword or knife, we'll respond with a knife."

The United States and South Korea have been conducting joint military operations near the heavily fortified border with North Korea. North Korea has warned the drills could lead to war.

In its statement Wednesday, North Korea said that it has been compelled to develop missiles because the United States keeps troops and weapons in South Korea and still harbors intentions to invade the North.

U.S. officials have said that North Korea, which is in dire financial straits and suffering from widespread famine, is using the missile test threat to gain economic aid and concessions.

The officials said the Clinton administration has proposed lifting an embargo on trade between the two countries in exchange for a moratorium on missile tests.

The United States has also proposed increased relief aid and the possibility of eventually releasing some frozen North Korean assets, the officials said.

Still, some foreign ministry officials in Japan and South Korea expressed doubt that North Korea would walk away from a fight so easily. "This missile is one of the last few leverages Pyongyang has to negotiate with foreign countries," one official said.

---

U.S., S. Korea Stage War Games

By The Associated Press, August 19, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Koreas-US-War-Games.html

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- With hundreds of civilians watching from sidewalks and buildings, South Korean troops fired blanks and threw fake hand grenades today in a military exercise intended to train soldiers for war on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea condemned the fourth day of joint exercises by U.S. and South Korean troops as a provocative act.

However, the Pyongyang government said Wednesday it was ready for talks to resolve international concern over its reported plan to test-launch a long-range ballistic missile.

North Korea said it was compelled to develop missiles because the United States plans to invade the North, but it was ready for negotiations ``if the hostile nations honestly ask for it out of an intention to alleviate our concern.''

Today's simulated gunfight involved 1,200 soldiers and police in an eight-lane boulevard in northern Seoul. A group of soldiers played the role of North Korean infiltrators who tried to occupy a main government building.

It was part of a 12-day military exercise that largely involves computer-simulated games and is held every year.

Senior officers trained in a packed room at the U.S. Eighth Army base in central Seoul. Dozens of U.S. and South Korean military officials sat typing at computers while others filled in documents and placed stickers on maps.

``The purpose of the exercise is to improve the joint staff coordination ... to enhance deterrence against an enemy attack,'' said Col. Mark W. Graper, a spokesman for the U.S. Command in South Korea.

North Korea denounced the exercises.

``If the U.S. imperialists continue to pursue confrontation and war, lending a deaf ear to our repeated warnings, they will be wholly responsible for all the ensuing consequences,'' said Rodong Shinmun, a ruling party newspaper. The report was carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

North Korea alarmed Northeast Asia in August 1998 by sending a multistage rocket sailing over northern Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Pyongyang said it launched a satellite, but the United States said it was a long-range ballistic missile.

Amid reports that North Korea is preparing to launch another missile, the United States, Japan and South Korea have warned such action would lead to economic and diplomatic sanctions.

On Thursday, officials announced that the defense chiefs of China and South Korea will hold their first ever meeting next week.

South Korean Defense Minister Cho Sung-tae hopes to use his talks Monday with his Chinese counterpart, Chi Haotian, to win Beijing's influence to help persuade North Korea to suspend a missile launch.

The two Koreas are technically still at war. The 1950-53 Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty. About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in the South under a defense treaty.

The annual training involves 14,000 U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea and 5,400 others brought from the U.S. mainland, Japan and Guam, along with 56,000 South Korean troops.

-----------